There certainly needs to be operator to operator contact. But unless the pipes are secured, which the idea of dedicated +addresses for both sender and recipient accomplishes at a light-weight level ...
Separating the wheat from the chaff will get way out of hand ... instantly. Aloha, Michael. -- Michael J Wise Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed." Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool ? -----Original Message----- From: Philip Paeps [mailto:phi...@trouble.is] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 12:17 PM To: Michael Wise <michael.w...@microsoft.com> Cc: Laura Atkins <la...@wordtothewise.com>; Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitch...@isipp.com>; mailop@mailop.org Subject: Re: [mailop] Do we need a new list for reporting spam? (Was Re: Admin: This is not a place to report Spam. ) On 2017-04-10 19:01:34 (+0000), Michael Wise <michael.w...@microsoft.com> wrote: >Philip Paeps <phi...@trouble.is> wrote: >>On 2017-04-10 17:15:38 (+0000), Michael Wise via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> >>wrote: >>>And a way to establish contacts automatically. >> >>What's wrong with the well-known abuse@ address? Or postmaster@? > >You're missing the larger issue of having abuse and postmaster flooded with >spam. I'm sympathetic to that issue but: 1) Networks should ensure that their users can't abuse them. Obviously that will never be perfect but if you're in the business of relaying a huge amount of email for customers, you'd better be prepared to make sure your customers don't abuse that. 2) I'm not advocating that there must be humans reading abuse@ or postmaster@ (groan!) but it would be nice if there's a way to contact the humans. I do appreciate the way that works at e.g. hotmail / outlook.com: the auto-reply contains clear instructions on how to get in touch with a human if the robots are unhelpful. The real larger issue I see is that there are too many networks who don't have their users under control and are not prepared to get them under control. The fact that their abuse@/postmaster@ mailboxes get flooded with spam is a symptom of the larger problem. I have little sympathy for those networks. In a better world, where networks have their users under control, we wouldn't have to forward so much mail to abuse@. But in the imperfect world we live in, "network incapable of dealing with abuse reports" works pretty well as a filter for networks I don't want to receive mail from. This (sub-)thread is about "do we need another place we can automatically report spam" - I don't think we do. And "do we need another way of hassling already overwhelmed abuse contacts" - I don't think we need that either. Not automatically anyway. That would make an already bad situation worse. Messages like "does anyone know how to get in touch with network X" should be the exception rather than the rule. The fact that there's not a lot more traffic on this list means it's probably working reasonably well? Philip -- Philip Paeps Senior Reality Engineer Ministry of Information _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
